TV & Radio
September 30, 2005
Americans Plan Rome Trip Over Ban on Gay Priests
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN - New York Times
Responding to reports that the Vatican may be close to releasing a directive to exclude most gay candidates from entering the priesthood, leaders of Roman Catholic men's religious orders in the United States are planning to travel to Rome to voice their objections in person.
The trip is one of the steps by leaders of Catholic religious orders to try to reassure priests and seminarians who have been rattled by news of a possible Vatican ban on the ordination of gay men.
Word of the trip, which has not been scheduled, was in an internal letter sent on Monday to leaders of religious orders from the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the key American coordinating body for more than 250 leaders of Catholic religious orders, like the Franciscans, the Dominicans and the Jesuits. The letter was provided to The New York Times by a member of a religious order who said he was pleased by the superiors' actions.
In addition, at least two leaders of Jesuit provinces have written to their priests and seminarians reassuring them that their sexual orientation is not an issue as long as they remain celibate and chaste.
"We're not going to push anybody overboard," said the Rev. John Whitney, head of the Oregon province of Jesuits, which includes 254 men in five Northwestern states.
The Vatican has not even released a document on the issue, which has been under discussion for more than 10 years. Several news outlets, including The Times, reported last week that Vatican officials had said it would most likely be released soon, but no Vatican directive is certain until it is formally promulgated.
Still, several religious superiors said on Thursday that even the anticipation that the church could exclude men from the priesthood because of their sexual orientation had prompted an outpouring of fear and concern among priests - gays and heterosexuals alike. The superiors said their goal was to communicate to their men that they understood the impact that such a directive could have, and to convey that to the Vatican in hopes they could have an impact on the document's contents.
"This is an anxious moment; it creates difficult issues for people," said the Rev. Paul Lininger, executive director of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, who signed the letter to his colleagues and spoke by telephone. "But we want to be able to say to our men that we will be able to talk to various types of parties, and when the time comes we will communicate back to you."
Father Lininger said the letter was supposed to remain private, "because we don't want to inflame situations, but we needed to respond."
That the leaders of religious orders would step forward is not entirely surprising, said R. Scott Appleby, a historian of Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame.
"Historically the superiors of religious orders have been more independent of the hierarchy," he said. "They are relatively autonomous and responsible for their own company of priests and brothers, so they're more accustomed to looking out for their own."
Some Catholics have said they would welcome the ban because they attribute the sexual abuse scandal to gay priests who preyed on young men.
But Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the Vatican began examining whether to ordain gays long before the abuse scandal broke in 2002, and not because of pedophilia.
"The church is not saying anything like that," Monsignor Maniscalco said. "Pedophilia is its own psychosexual illness, and has its own kind of syndrome. This is looking at another issue, which is the training for celibacy and the ability to live a celibate life. We live in an age in which people are told to express themselves, in which the gay rights movement says to come to grips with your orientation and to live it. And in that environment, there can be confusion, even in seminaries."
The provincial of the New York province of Jesuits, the Rev. Gerald J. Chojnacki, also sent a letter to his priests on Monday denouncing any move to exclude homosexuals.
"We know that God does not discriminate," Father Chojnacki wrote. "We know that gay men who have responded to the call have served the church well as priests and religious - and so why would we be asked to discriminate based on orientation alone against those whom God has called and invited?"
He wrote that he had participated in the funerals of "some very fine and distinguished Jesuits" who were also gay men. "I find it insulting to demean their memory and their years of service by even hinting that they were unfit for priesthood because of their sexual orientation," wrote Father Chojnacki, who leads one of the largest Jesuit provinces in the country, with 437 men.
This letter was addressed to "Brothers and Friends in the Lord," and has been circulated even outside the New York Jesuit province by priests encouraged by its message. One such priest shared it with The Times.
Father Chojnacki did not respond to a request for an interview. A spokesman for the New York province, Peter Feuerherd, said the letter had been directed to New York Jesuits "and was intended to address their concerns."
About 15,000 priests belong to religious orders, approximately one-third of those serving in the United States. The other two-thirds belong to dioceses, whose local leaders are bishops. Religious orders also include brothers, who are not ordained as members of the clergy.
Religious order priests serve in many capacities: teachers and professors, missionaries and professionals in many fields and in parishes. There are also contemplative priests and brothers, who devote themselves primarily to prayer.
Many religious orders, like many diocesan seminaries, say their admissions policies do not discriminate against candidates on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Said Father Whitney, the Oregon provincial, "We continue to go by the standard we have always gone by, which is that our orientation is toward chastity, and that is the orientation we most care about."
Bay Area, US: Gay Catholics keeping faith despite Vatican - SF Chronicle
October 1, 2005
Day Arrives for Recognition of Gay Unions in Connecticut
By WILLIAM YARDLEY New York Times
HARTFORD, Sept. 30 - Anne Bailey, 72, and Betty Palmer, 66, fell in love canoeing in Canada seven years ago and now have an engraved metal sign in their driveway with prominent lettering, "Bailey Palmer."
Their friends, JoAn Smith, 66, and Marilyn Ottone, 57, occasional guests at cocktail hour in the comfortable Bailey Palmer house, in the woods of rural New Hartford, have been open about their relationship since it began in 1974.
Yet for all the years of commitment between the two couples, now retired, they do not plan to take the newest legal step for gay couples, entering civil unions, which Connecticut begins recognizing on Saturday, the second state to do so, after Vermont.
"For many of our friends who are gay, this is not a significant event in their lives," said Ms. Smith, 66, a retired manager for an insurance company. "It doesn't mean that I can now claim Marilyn as a dependent. It doesn't mean that I can leave her my money without consequence. It doesn't give me the same rights as the average American."
None of the four reject civil unions on principle or say they would refuse anything less than full gay marriage, which is legal next door in Massachusetts. Instead, after years of devotion to each other, they say they are emotionally secure in their relationships regardless of legal recognition. And on a practical level, the women echo the uncertainty that legal experts say surrounds state civil unions: What, exactly, are the benefits?
Not everyone is spending time worrying. Beginning Saturday, town clerks in some of Connecticut's 169 cities and towns will keep their offices open to accept applications for civil unions. The rest will begin accepting applications on Monday. Some gay partners, including a state lawmaker, are planning Saturday ceremonies in parks, churches and city halls.
Even those like Ms. Bailey and Ms. Smith who are not planning civil unions see them as progress. "It's remarkable that we've come from the days that we spent in coal-black bars in Provincetown to the light of day," Ms. Smith said.
But the new law, which effectively grants gay couples every state right and benefit that married couples receive, does not resolve many major questions, including how gay couples will be treated in other states, what their status is under federal law, which does not recognize gay unions, and whether it is financially wise to legally unite.
"Everybody's amazed at the complexities that this law will present," said Brad Gallant, an estate lawyer with Day, Berry & Howard, which has set up an estate-planning group for same-sex couples.
In April, the Democratic-controlled General Assembly and Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, approved the law, making Connecticut the second state to approve civil unions and the first to do so without court pressure. Massachusetts, after a 2003 court decision, began allowing gays to marry. California has a broad domestic partnership law, though last month Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a gay marriage bill passed by the State Legislature.
It is unclear what rights will cross state lines. Some experts believe that Vermont, which approved civil unions in 2000 after a lawsuit, and Connecticut will be "reciprocal," that each state will recognize a civil union from the other. But Connecticut does not recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts.
Within the state, the new law will ensure a broad range of rights. Gay partners can serve as conservators of their partners' estates; they can receive state tax deductions if they inherit money from their partners; they can be assured of hospital visiting rights; they can file joint state income tax returns and take the same deductions married couples do.
Yet most of the largest tax benefits from inheritance and income are federal, leaving what Mr. Gallant called a "huge inequality."
The status of gay parents may also not change. In 2000, the state made it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children, and some experts say that status as an adoptive parent may carry more force than a civil union license, particularly if the child was born before the civil union occurred.
"Parents who've already gone through those adoptions are not going to gain anything else, perhaps," said Carolyn Kaas, a law professor at Quinnipiac University, which held a seminar in Hamden on Friday to explore the legal questions of civil unions.
An advocacy group, Love Makes a Family, says it plans to continue its push for gay marriage in Connecticut. But even gay marriage within the state would leave questions.
"Until the federal government is willing to define relationships by state law, we're not going to fully achieve equality for same-sex couples," Ms. Kaas said.
Even with so many uncertainties, many gay couples plan to "get civilized," as some are calling the unions. Art Feltman, a state representative from Hartford, said he was planning to be united with his partner of 25 years at a ceremony at Hartford City Hall on Saturday.
And Chelsea Turner, a lobbyist who helped push the civil union bill through the legislature this spring, said she and her partner are having a ceremony, "kind of a renewal of vows if you will," in Elizabeth Park, which straddles the border between Hartford and West Hartford. A year ago, in the same place, they declared their commitment before 120 guests.
"We've talked about starting a family, and it will no doubt add a comfort that we would not have had," Ms. Turner said of the new law. "I guess it's not about any one individual right or responsibility. It's more about being able to say to a principal when you pick your kid up at school, 'I'm little Johnny's parent' and to not be questioned about that."
Celebration, confusion as Connecticut recognizes civil unions
By Susan Haigh, Associated Press Writer | September 30, 2005
HARTFORD, Conn. --Connecticut joins Vermont on Saturday as the only states offering same-sex civil unions, but the day may pass with only a few raised glasses of champagne as the first gay couples exchange vows.
Because Oct. 1 falls on a Saturday, only a handful of town clerks' offices plan to be open. Gay rights activists know of some planned ceremonies that day -- including one officiated by Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, who's running for governor -- but don't know how many couples will race to apply for civil unions.
"Saturday is going to be a landmark day in the civil rights movement in Connecticut," said state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, one of a handful of openly gay legislators in Connecticut's General Assembly.
But the law is also creating confusion with some employers who will be required to extend health benefits to same-sex couples.
"I think employers are going to start getting requests (for benefits) as soon as Monday. And they're not prepared," said Bruce Barth, an employee benefits attorney at Robinson and Cole in Hartford.
Connecticut's law passed in April, making it the first state to recognize same-sex unions without court intervention. Laws in Vermont and Massachusetts, which allows gay couples to marry, were created as a result of legal action. In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger followed through on his promise Thursday to veto a bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
Connecticut will recognize Vermont's civil unions but officials are still researching other states' domestic partnership laws and civil unions granted in foreign countries. But it will not recognize same-sex marriages because its law specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman, a distinction that angers some couples.
Town clerks and justices of the peace spent the past few weeks learning the ins and outs of civil unions. The justices, who are not required to perform civil unions, have been encouraged to conclude civil union ceremonies by pronouncing couples "partners in life" rather than husband and wife. They were also reminded that heterosexual couples aren't eligible for civil unions.
The 2000 U.S. Census found about 7,400 same-sex couples in Connecticut, but there's no way to know how many might seek civil unions.
Town clerks say they'll be prepared for whoever shows up.
"We're ready," said Sandra Hutton, president of the Connecticut Town Clerk's Association. "We have the proper documentation. We won't have any problems at all."
Civil unions will give same-sex couples the same legal protections that married couples enjoy, including spousal health care benefits. However, they will not be subject to any of the federal laws pertaining to married couples because the federal government defines a spouse as someone of the opposite gender.
Experts said the business community may face the biggest adjustment as Connecticut's law takes effect, especially when state and federal laws overlap.
Bonnie Stewart, vice president and counsel for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, said she believes civil unions won't be as confusing as some fear. Employers should just follow the rule that, "if you offer it to married couples, yes, now you have to offer it to a civil union couple," she said.
But health insurance for civil partners will be taxed by the federal government as income because couples are not considered married under federal law. That means a civil union partner's taxable income for state purposes will be different from the taxable income reported on their W-2 form.
"There is certainly a level of complexity that benefit administrators are going to have to deal with," said Michael Dimenstein, director of compensation and benefits for the Yale-New Haven Health System.
Opponents are lobbying for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage when the General Assembly goes back into session next year. A rally is scheduled Saturday.
Meanwhile, arguments are scheduled for January in a lawsuit brought by eight same-sex Connecticut couples who want to force the state to allow them full marriage rights.
But for couples like Chris and Scott Emmerson-Pace, Saturday will be a day of celebration. The Monroe couple plans to apply for their license in Kent and have their ceremony that day before hosting a reception in their home.
"We've been waiting 14 years, so we didn't want to wait any longer," said Chris Emmerson-Pace, 36, a teacher. "We also wanted to do it right on Oct. 1 just to send the message to the state that we respect what they're doing."
Associated Press reporter Cara Rubinsky contributed to this report.
Senate hate crime bill won’t include trans
Impact of House passage on Senate, ENDA unclear - Blade
By EARTHA JANE MELZER
Friday, September 30, 2005
The passage of a trans-inclusive hate crimes bill shows that there has been progress in educating lawmakers on gender identity issues, advocates said, but achieving protections against discrimination in employment and other key areas will require much more work.
The House passed the first hate crimes legislation that explicitly includes gender identity on Sept. 14 as part of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was an amendment to the Child Safety Act.
The House, which supported a gay-inclusive hate crimes bill without language on gender identity last year with a 213-186 vote, approved the sexual orientation and gender identity inclusive bill 223-199.
Chris Labonte, deputy political director for the Human Rights Campaign, said that in lobbying for the bill’s passage he did not encounter a single member of Congress who withdrew support for the bill because of the inclusion of gender identity. The small difference in the level of support for the hate crimes bill is more likely attributable to changes in the composition of Congress itself, Labonte said.
“Not many believe that the federal government should not be getting involved if a person is targeted for violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Chris Anders, legislative counsel for the ACLU.
Anders said that when the hate crimes bill was first drafted eight years ago it included gender, sexual orientation and disability, and it was generally assumed that gender identity would be picked up as a protected class within these definitions.
Because the Bush administration has not been supportive of hate crimes legislation, Anders said, “The concern is that if the bill passes, the Bush Justice Department will take the most narrow view. It increases the need to be very explicit.”
The version of the hate crimes bill that was introduced by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) in the Senate in May does not include gender identity.
Chris Matthews, a spokesperson for Smith, said the Senate bill would not be amended to include gender identity because the bill has passed the Senate four times before, and to change it might jeopardize its passage.
“The Senate works on precedent,” Matthews said. “This bill has good bipartisan support, the best thing for hate crimes legislation is for it to pass.”
It is not yet clear when the Senate will vote on the bill, but should it pass again, the House and Senate would resolve differences between the two versions in a conference committee.
Trans-inclusive ENDA still controversial
It is not clear what meaning the House’s passage of the hate crimes bill will have for other proposed legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA, first introduced in 1994, which would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) have said that including gender identity in ENDA would be politically untenable and likely doom the measure. Frank and Kennedy did not respond by press time to questions about whether the passage of the trans-inclusive hate crimes measure had changed their thinking on the matter.
Labonte said that HRC is in the process of drafting a new version of ENDA. Last year, in response to protests by trans rights activists, HRC resolved not to support passage of gay workplace protections unless they also included protection for transgendered workers as well.
Labonte said some lawmakers comfortable with federal intervention on hate crimes may be less comfortable requiring businesses to enforce gay and trans non-discrimination policies. Some opponents of ENDA argue that the measure would expose businesses to expensive lawsuits.
American Civil Liberties Union
Gender Identity & Transgender Rights
米最高裁長官ウィリアム・レンキスト氏――保守的憲法判断、揺るがず（追想録） (日本経済 2005/09/30夕刊)
シュワ知事 同性婚法案の承認拒否 (共同 2005/09/30)
4:02 PM PDT, September 29, 2005 latimes.com
Schwarzenegger Vetoes Bill Legalizing Gay Marriage
By Nancy Vogel, LA Times Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today vetoed a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage in California, saying that although he believes gay couples are "entitled to full protection under the law," the bill would have wrongly reversed an initiative California voters approved five years ago.
"I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California," the governor wrote in his veto message.
Schwarzenegger's rejection of the measure was expected, even though when he was asked about same-sex marriage last year he said, "I don't care one way or the other."
The bill, AB 849 by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was the first sanctioning same-sex marriage to clear a state legislature without a court order. It passed the Senate and Assembly earlier this month with no Republican votes and without a vote to spare after lengthy, debate.
Leno accused Schwarzenegger of "hiding behind the fig leaf" of Proposition 22, which 61% of California voters approved in 2000. It says that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
"The governor has failed his test of leadership and has missed a history opportunity to stand up for the basic civil rights of all Californians," said Leno. "He cannot claim to support fair and equal legal protections for same sex couples and veto the very bill that would have provided it to them."
Schwarzenegger's veto will not end the debate over same-sex marriage in a state whose residents are evenly divided, 46% to 46%, according to an August poll.
The California Supreme Court is likely to decide next year whether state laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman are constitutional, including Proposition 22.
Voters may also consider the issue directly next year. Two petitions are in circulation for initiatives that would define marriage in California as between a man and a woman and ban recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages.
In vetoing Leno's bill, the governor ignored pressure from gay rights activists who mounted an unusual television campaign that asked him to "be a hero."
The gay rights group Equality California recently spent at least $100,000 for television ads in Los Angeles and Sacramento that feature images of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Cesar Chavez as a narrator intones, "Those who have made America great are the ones who have brought America together."
"Now Governor Schwarzenegger will make a decision for which he will forever be remembered," the ad continues. "He can stand up for the basic rights of all Californians and sign the Marriage Equality Act or he can stand with the forces of discrimination. Governor, the choice is yours. Be a hero."
On September 7, the day after the Assembly passed Leno's bill, Schwarzenegger's office issued a statement saying, "The governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action-which would be unconstitutional-but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state."
Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill as promised
- Lynda Gledhill, SF Chronicle Sacramento Bureau
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today delivered on his promise to veto legislation that would have given same-sex partners the right to marry, but said he would not support any rollback of the state's current domestic partner benefits.
That stance would put him at odds with two initiatives being pursued by conservative groups for the ballot next year. Those measures would not only prevent gay marriage, but also eliminate rights domestic partners currently enjoy.
"I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners," Schwarzenegger said in his veto message. "I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support any rollback."
But that position did not placate the author of the same-sex marriage bill, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco.
"The governor has failed his test of leadership and missed a historic opportunity to stand up for the basic civil rights of all Californians," Leno said. "He cannot claim to support fair and equal treatment for same-sex couples and veto the very bill that would have provided it to them."
Schwarzenegger's strong stance in favor of domestic partner rights, along with his signature today on four bills strengthening protections for gays and lesbians was clearly meant to temper the outpouring of criticism he had received for saying he would veto the bill.
In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, an initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California. Several court cases on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage are making their way through the court system.
Schwarzenegger said the ultimate decision will be made by a court.
The legislature's passage of AB 849 marked the first time that a legislative body in the United States has approved a bill that legalizes gay marriage. Support from the United Farm Workers helped to push the bill to the governor's desk.
The bill would not have required any religious organization to recognize or perform marriages for same-sex couples. The bill makes the law defining marriage gender-neutral. California state law did not place gender into the marriage code until 1977.
Conservative groups had warned Schwarzenegger that he needed to take a strong stand against the bill.
Massachusetts became the only state that allows same-sex marriage after a court ruling. Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions.
Calif. Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes gay marriage bill
Reuters September 29, 2005
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a widely expected move vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have allowed gay couples to marry.
The Republican governor had earlier this month indicated he would veto the bill passed by California's Democrat-led legislature. The bill was the first of its kind approved by a state legislature.
Schwarzenegger said he would leave the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to voters and the courts. "I do not believe the legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California," he said in a written statement.
"This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue," Schwarzenegger wrote. "If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective."
California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez sharply criticized Schwarzenegger's veto.
"History will show that Gov. Schwarzenegger had a chance to end the last vestige of legal discrimination in our state," Nunez said in a statement. "Instead of choosing the way of the future the governor has aligned himself with the enemies of equal rights for all."
California voters approved a ballot measure five years ago defining marriage as between a man and woman, a law San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom defied in 2004 by issuing city marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Newsom's move sparked a national firestorm and has forced a showdown in state court over California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
California's supreme court invalidated the San Francisco licenses but has left the wider issue of whether a ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional to lower courts.
Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage Bill
By STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press Writer
- September 29, 2005
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger followed through Thursday on his promise to veto a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in California, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.
"This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue," the Republican governor said in a veto message.
Schwarzenegger had announced his intention on Sept. 7, a day after the Legislature became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing gays and lesbians to wed.
Schwarzenegger said the bill by Democrat Mark Leno, an openly gay assemblyman from San Francisco, contradicted Proposition 22, which was approved by voters in 2000 and said only marriages between a man and woman are valid.
While a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that the ban is unconstitutional, Schwarzenegger noted that the case is before a state appeals court and will likely be decided by the California Supreme Court.
"If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional this bill is not necessary," he said. "If the ban is constitutional this bill is ineffective."
He said the state constitution bars the Legislature from enacting a law allowing gay marriage without another vote by the citizenry.
Eddie Gutierrez, a spokesman for Equality California, a gay rights group that supported the bill, said Schwarzenegger had merely delayed the day when gay marriage is legal.
"We are extremely disappointed with the governor's decision," he said. "By denying us marriage equality, he has turned a back to our community."
Schwarzenegger terminates gay marriage bill
- September 29, 2005 AFP
California's movie star governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger formally terminated historic legislation to legalise gay marriage in the Golden state, he announced.
The former action hero vetoed the bill approved by the California legislature earlier this month, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts on the basis of existing laws and constitutional rights, not by new legislation.
"This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue," Schwarzenegger said in a statement explaining why he returned the bill without his signature.
"If the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective," he said.
If California Assembly Bill 849 had been approved by the governor, it would have marked the first time that a US state's legislature had changed the law to put gay marriages on an equal footing with heterosexual unions.
Currently the state of Massachusetts is the only US state to recognises same sex marriages after its supreme court in 2003 declared the ban on such unions unconstitutional.
Web posted at: 15:43 JST
米・最高裁長官に保守派ロバーツ氏 中絶や同性婚は (テレビ朝日 2005/09/30)
ロバーツ最高裁長官が就任 米司法に保守派の影響力 (共同 2005/09/30)
＜米上院＞最高裁長官にロバーツ連邦高裁判事の指名承認 (毎日 2005/09/30)
米最高裁長官にロバーツ氏就任 (読売 2005/09/30)
最高裁長官にロバーツ氏、賛成多数で承認…米上院 (読売 2005/09/30)
2005年 09月 30日 金曜日 06:46 JST
［ワシントン ２９日 ロイター］ 米上院は２９日、ブッシュ大統領が連邦最高裁長官に指名したジョン・ロバーツ連邦高裁判事（５０）の長官就任を賛成７８、反対２２で承認した。
米最高裁長官にロバーツ氏就任・憲法守る考え強調 (日本経済 2005/09/30)
米上院本会議、ロバーツ米最高裁長官を承認 (日本経済 2005/09/30)
Yahoo! News Full Coverage Supreme Court
2007年仏大統領選は女性対決？ 左右両陣営とも“出馬宣言” (産経 2005/09/28)
男性優位の仏政界に波紋…大物２女性が大統領選に意欲 (読売 2005/09/30)
フランス：2007年大統領選出馬を目指す二人の女性 - UPI
受付意見の概要 - 厚生労働省
１ 男女雇用機会均等の確保について (1 ) 男女双方に対する差別の禁止 (1) 男女双方に対する差別の禁止とすべきとの意見が多かったが、女性差別是正が進んでいない中にあって双方差別禁止規定を設けるべきではない等の意見も少数ながら見られた。